Talk:Fog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

Contents 1 Images 2 Another photo 3 Fog articles 4 Catagorization 5 Help!

[edit] Images

Do we really need all those images? --Thorpe 17:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No, but on the other hand is there a compelling reason to remove them? Pcb21 Pete 22:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is. Per WP:Images: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. ... Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text." There are too many images on the page illustrating the same thing. They need to be organized so that redundant images are removed and so that the images can be connected to the different types of fog being discussed. I don't know much about the topic, or else I would've done this already. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, some of the images were named according to what type of fog they were, so I went ahead and formatted the pictures. I removed one or two duplicate images, and left the better quality one. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am reading the article for the first time. The number of images, their size, and placement really screw up the flow of the article. I would recommend reducing to one of two images, if possible.Cdcon 22:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I aligned the images along one side, and set all but the first one to use the readers's default "thumb" size instead of specifying one for each image. I think this is much cleaner. Johntex\^talk 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Even cleaner - all to default size... L/wangi 12:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, If you think this article is overcrowded with photographs, check Cat. --StimpsonDE 13:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another photo

I was going to add this photo to commons: http://www.pbase.com/wangi/image/55500828, however this article already seems to be overloaded with photos, as noted above. I'll upload it if other people agree and we can decide which existing photo(s) to remove. Fair enough? thanks/wangi 14:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fog articles

Can anyone help create fog type articles - such as radiation fog? Moon&Nature 19:01, August 20, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Catagorization

Although it appears to be a nice article, there is only one external reference, which throws its B status in doubt. More references are needed for this page to keep its B. Thegreatdr 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

The entire content of the article is now

"i am gay. i have no pennis."

Can someone please revert this rather sad vandalism. Mglovesfun 13:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)